The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1887-11-04

Oshers % Hear ths speschss-
WASHINGTON, Oct. x7.-Long before the
hour Of the opening Of the doors Of the
United States Supreme Court room today
large crowd had gathered In the cor
ridors patiently waiting the opening q
~ court room. ana an opportunity 70
hear the arg umsnt In the appeal Of the
condemned Chicago Anarchist, which Il
% BE- heard to-day. The court assembled
promptly a. noon. and ~ that time the
dingy and cramped court room was crowd
cd with lawyers and spectators General
Butler, Roger A. Pryor, Captain Black
and Mr.. solomon, the Anarchists
counsel, sat side by side, with
their law books piled In front
Of them, ready, and apparently anxious to
commence tho effort 70 secure the inter-
ference Of the court In behalf Of their
clients. while near them sat Attorney
General Hunt. District Attorney Grinnell
and Others representing the State Of Illi-
nois. awaiting the commencement OF the
attack on the judgment OF the Supreme
Court OF their state. Spectators and law
yers were doomed 70 disappointment,
however. for the court, after admitting
several members to practice, took up am
other case Of minor Importance, In which
argument was begun. with fair prospect
Of lasting an hour or more.
Argument in this case was concluded at
i've minutes past one o'clock, when Chief
Justice Waite announced that the court
was ready TO take up the Anarchists
case. Al once there was . hush in the
court room. and : moment Of almost
breathless silence. General Butler rose
and stated his connection with the case.
that he represented twoof the condemned
Anarchists. and that his colleague, John
Randolph Tucker, " as ready TO open the
argument in behalf Of the petitioners
Then followed . moments consultation
about the time to be accorded counsel
! Attorney General Hunt Of Illinois said
I that. not knowing the scope tho OPP
posing counsel's argument might
take. he could not say how
much time the States council would re-
/ quire 20 answer. The court decided the
matter by allowing each side three hours,
1 and without further delay Mr.. Tucker
rose and began his argument, directing
his efforts to the question Of jurisdiction
raised BY the appeal for the writ Of error
I He did not propose to 60 over the whole
record OF the case and show the grounds
for reversal OF the judgment Of the ILL
\ nois court. but to show that this was q
\ case within the jurisdiction Of the Su-
preme Court, which justified the issuance
\ OF the writ
A The practice Of the Supreme Court, he in.
sisted, showed that Il had not been asked
to ind reasons for not issuing writs OF
error. but that Il had been diligent In find
\ ing reasons on which to base their juris-
diction to issue writs. All that vas nee
e<sary to do in this case was 20 show :
possible conflict between the State and
Federal statutes, and this he proposed &c
do. but beyond this the Importance Of this
case would warrant the court 70 issue thu
writ giving the plaintiffs the benefit
, any. q TO the courts jurisdiction
M. Tucker closed his argument ut half
past two with . very eloquent and inn
passioned appeal for justice for thes'
men. who. whether Anarchists or mot
, were entitled 70 the constitutional pro.
. lection and Intervention which the5
, sought to obtain for them.
The main contention Of counsel for thu
Anarchists, a, brought out In Roger A
Prvor's argument before the court thu
: other day and Mr.. fuckers opening argu
: ment, Is that BY the Illinois jury law am
Y by the action Of the Illinois court, the An
3 archists were convicted Of capital Of
Tense without due process OF Law
contrary 70 the guarantees 9
the Fourteenth amendment TO Oh
Constitutions; that due process Of Ia'
, implies and requires trial by nm impair
tial Jury; that the Illinois statute make
: competent juror with : preconceive
! and present opinion q TO the guilt Of I'll
accused: that IL is not therefore s'due pr
cess Of law which abridges 'sthe priv
, leges or immunities OF citizens Of a
United States" by denying the accuse
= s'the right to trial by an impartial jury
8 and is therefore unconstitutional
Attorney General Hunt. Of Illinois,
= his brief submitted 10 the court and by hi
1 oral argume emit day, opposed the gran
!; ing OF the writ Of error and replied 70 th
points. He insisted that 70 warrant "a
:. writ II must appear from the records this
!, there was q Federal question involves
I and that such question was raised and IL
= cided in the State court He denied this
!. these conditions were met. The record a
j not show that any Federal question u II
volved. The prohibitions, he contendes
y. contained in the first ten amendments
Y 20 the Constitution, are limitations on q
powers OF the Federal Government and NJ
upon the States, and so far as the Anarc
I. lists rely upon any thing contained !
v those amendments that they have \
- standing in the Supreme Con
\. or the Unised States The Fourtesns
y eme ndm>nt, he argued, was equal
I. foreign 70 any right, privilege or isnmnni'
= claimed by the petitioners. That amen
w. ment declared that no State shall make
u enforce any Law which shall abridge q
= privileges or immunities OF citizens Of 81
= United States. nor shall any State depri'
any person Of life, liberty or prcper'
= without due process OF Law, nor deny
:. any person within its Jurisdiction q
- equal protection Of the laws. But q
record showed that the complaint Is n
III that the State has made or IL enforcing
- - law which deprives the petitioners Of IN
= !. Of the privileges or immunities GUARANTEES
BY that section, but that they are depriv
y. OF rights by an erroneous construction
- law placed upon II by the trial court
~ the State The petitioners did not 6. a
In the Supreme Court At Ottawa tn
~ the Illinois Jury law was rcpugnant
- the Constitution, treaties or la'
~ of the United States; nor that q
authority Of the State Supreme Court "
'o ~. exercised under Il, but that the law "
". valid. and that the court exercised